So I have noticed on youtube benchmarks comparing our phone against others and some reason our phone in those videos being compared it falls short to around 20000 on antutu everytime but mines always around 30000. What is yours? Post pics please
This is my result on stock jelly bean 10k in case anyone wants to know, some reason no other ROM works as good stock jellybean for me.
Related
After racking my brain recently thinking that possibly my evo was somehow screwed up internally, I found the culprit.
Here's what happened....
I got bored and curious so I flashed a CM7 nightly to assure myself I have been missing nothing. Did the usual battery of testing after I update all my apps. Pathetically slow. I was left wondering how people could be bragging of 1600+ quadrant scores on aosp roms while I was barely getting over 1000. On VP I was accustomed to getting high 1400's. It seemed smooth enough but I wanted my VP back. I did a fresh install after a few wipes, same routine, updated apps and found I was getting 951 on the quadrant score, topping out at maybe 1100. That is 400 points below what I was getting before using the same kernel etc!
This has gone on for days now, been reading xda, even bugged a developer to see if he had insight. Thought I was onto something earlier when people reported problems with DarkTremors a2sd since I had upgraded to latest beta 4. So I wiped no less than 7 times, even once in the bootloader. Installed VaelPak2.3a and my scores were back! Thought I solved it but nope. Installed VaelPak3.1 found my scores back to normal. Did update 2, scores still normal. Upgraded apps. Scores dropped 300+ points.
Pulled the Quadrant from the VaelPak rom, and guess what? My scores are back to normal! So, am I the only one who has upgraded Quadrant and seen a difference in scores?
[quadrant version 1.1.5 is the good working version, 1.1.7 currently in the Market is causing the low scores]
Damn you're right, I was getting 1800+ before and now with 1.1.7 it's down to 1500+. Not quite the drop you were getting but it's still a significant difference.
Is it possible that newer Quadrant is supposed to give lower scores now on same hardware because it takes into account better hardware/newer phones? Idk, just posing the question
The most recent quadrant update apparently shows lower score results. Same thing happened with Linpack awhile back, they say it's more accurate now :/
same here, dropped by almost 200.
I can't say for sure whether they wanted the drop to "be more accurate" since the change log for 1.1.7 only claims gingerbread compatibility fixes. If you notice, the comparison chart levels have not changed along with the result ranges. A standard EVO is still something like 1200 or 1250 like it has always been. So, I do not see these numbers being more accurate if I am scoring significantly less than a stock unrooted phone.
I guess what I am saying is that if a benchmark decides to adjust their rating scale, the comparison scale should follow suit.
Don't you hate it when you spend time trying to fix something and here it not you at all? Like the the sound goes out on the TV. Then you spend the next 10 min. reseting receivers your TV and every device in your house. Just to find you its the cable company. Man I hate that.. let the bashing of cable companies begin...
Also:
I used to run those kinds of tests on my video cards on my pc all the time. Then they started making them for better cards and my scores kept going lower and lower. Eventually I got board with it because I knew I had a good card. It was just their POS software was making it look bad. Haven't ran that app since. Hope that doesn't happen to quadrant.
no wonder, and i cant get 1.1.7 to work on my g1. can anyone kindly share me 1.1.5's apk?
googled for it but couldnt find any
thanks!
First off I'm fairly aware of the fact that benchmarks are not accurate representations of the day to day real life usefulness of the handset.
That said, I used both linpack and quadrant standard edition for the first time tonight while testing another kernel with my current rom (which is cm7, ggingerbread-6).
At the conclusion of my testing it was very obvious that one kernel completely outclassed the other in a benchmarking situation, however something else became apparent that leads to this post.
If I follow and believe everyone else's benchmark scores, even those posted an hour earlier in the same kernel thread, then I might have the slowest Evo on planet earth.
I see other users of the same rom and kernal posting scores which are never below 1500 in quadrant, I saw one instance of 1300 but nonetheless, even overclocking to 1075 I can barely break 1100 and usually fall just below that. Sadly enough on the "slower" of the 2 kernals I was barely surpassing 900.
Now on the linpack side of things I don't have any comparative scores to judge against, but ill post what I received anyhow for information's sake. On the "faster" of the two kernels (the one that came prebuilt into the rom) I was getting between 33-34, on the new kernel I was testing I was getting between 19 and 22, these are all "mflops" of course, whatever that may be.
Someone give me some information or advice here! Do I just happen to have a slow evolution, or are others either exaggerating or using some trick/mod/tweak I'm royalty unaware of??
Thanks in advance!
some people brag, some people cheat, most have low scores, few have high, there isn't a very good baseline and the benchmark programs dont scale very well at all, I have run 1800 scores and I have run 600 scores, guess what. both roms were smooth and you wouldn't have been able to tell a difference, what does that mean? do we believe the benchmark programs? are they spitting a random number at us? who knows! dont believe them, be satisfied with how your evo is running and if it's not running very well then try a different kernel or rom, keep trying new ones until your satisfied, only then will some benchmark program output not mean a thing
Most of my Quadrant benchmarks with aftermarket ROMS+kernels have been in the 1100-1400 range, using VaelPak and various kernels to get most of the better scores there. The highest I've had was CM7RC1 with the SnapTurbo kernel, got an 1821. It was unusable, though.
I've come to the conclusion that the benchmarks aren't as important as battery life, especially with the Evo.
Biggest reason for the huge difference in numbers? Different versions of the app. The dev changed how it rates phones.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Thanks!
Explained. I knew they were totally not concurrent with the outward performance and usability of the device, and for what its worth while I've only ever flashed a total of 3 roms, this one is perfect for me and I seem to be one of the rare few with no problems whatsoever, everything works exactly as I would expect it to. So yes, l never feared my device was suddenly slower now that I knew the all knowing superultrabenchmark number.
I know the Evo is an older phone but it still hold it's own and is sometimes the standard in which a benchmark has been made. I ALSO know that the quadrant score is just a placebo and not really something you go by to define your phones abilities.
That being said, I noticed on the quad test in the video area I was getting single to LOW double digit frame-rates. I didn't try this with the stock but I get the same results on Warm and on CM7. I use the quad test just for my personal use and a small ruler just to see what might have changed from Rom to Rom. The CM7 Rom on nightly 30 is fantastic but the video score is pushing out a 1000 quad score BELOW the Evo 2.2 marker. It also did the same when I tried out 26(maybe 25) so I know this is phone related somehow.
I'm not worried about speeding up the phone because it's snappy, I was more curious as to what the deal is with the video processing. Is this standard or fixable?
As you already stated Quadrant is a bit of a placebo. The bigger problem is that it is highly inaccurate with Gingergread. CM7 will get around 1000 because of this alone. This is not because of the graphics. Flash back to CM6 and rerun it, I was hitting 1700s with early Savage kernel (pre-zen-merger), the graphics scores aren't much better: the planets maxes around 45-50fps but the others rarely crack 20.
Another interesting thing I found. Run it twice. 2nd will always be higher. Might be a true score. Not sure why this is. I'm on CM7 but I did this on other ROMs.
You'll get higher scores on anything but CM7, but honestly the scores don't measure your performance.
I agree they don't and again I am not saying "why are my scores low". I am actually watching the video test and seeing FPS 9-18. I could care less what the end result is, I'll put my phone up to anyones phone in the same ballpark and I know it will blow away or hold it's own.
Is there another standalone more accurate video test?
I am coming from a Vibrant which was sick and I don't expect the same picture but 9FPS is not good for any phone.
Didn't see a thread for this in here anymore so I thought I'd post. I know synthetic benchmarks don't mean a lot but I'm curious of what other people are scoring since mine seems to be lower than others tested.
My phone is a Telus SGH-T989D with a rooted stock rom with SetCPU running the system at 1.5 and have the V6 Tweak setup.
I find it interesting others have scored over 4000.
I was going to ask this same question. I tried smart bench on stock rom and the score was always between 2500 and 3400 when i see results of over 4000... I now have the Bombaridier v1.3 Rom and still get the same low results?
Is this normal score or could our phones have some cpu problems? Im thinking on going to T-Mobile and exchange the phone since it also has the camera pink spot problem and minor screen lines and spots on low brightness in dark colors...
finally had some time to sit down and enjoy my phone
Why are we getting our clock cleaned by so many other SGII models?
I don't know if this is a contributing factor, but they're using 2.3.3
We're using 2.3.5
To further this pattern, from what I understand, ICS is causing qudrant scores in the low 2000's and below on good phones..
The more advanced the OS version, the more it taxes the phone.. Just an observation.
I understand that it's fun to see your phone on top, but aren't these "benchmark" tests pretty irrelevant to performance and satisfaction? Is your phone laggy? Do you have any problems or is everything buttery smooth and running well? If it is then I wouldn't worry about arbitrary test results to be honest. You can run benchmarks over and over and get a different score every time. You can cheat on them. In the end just find a ROM/Kernel with the settings and features you like and enjoy it!
Yes that's true but every upgrade in OS uses more resources, so you're bound to see more lag on ICS than our current ROM
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
I guess not that many people use this one.
I have a slightly defective Lg G3,
When running stock antutu is around 20k, quadrant is around 12K.
Now when i install AndroidNOW HD the kernel has a patch that fixes it, the phone scores around 25k Quadrant and 38-41K antutu.
I tried the 70-75-80% heat patch, but no dice, still no improvement, and i dont want to depend on a modded.
If i could identify the patch/correction that fixes this, issue and learn to apply it to AOSP and CM12. i´d be much happier since i dont have to depend on a specific rom from a developer that isnt extreamly liked here.
Scores are worthless. Bet you can't tell any difference when using it. ?
actually it does lag a little, also crashes once in a while.
no one as a clue as to this ?
Or are you just teasing me becuase im worried about scores ? its not only benchmarks, the phone shuts down, some games wont run, others run with artifacting...